Böbrek Tümörlerinde Biyopsinin Yeri
Özet
Görüntüleme yöntemlerinin yaygınlaşmasıyla küçük renal kitle saptama oranı artmış, saptanan bu tümörlerin çoğunun yavaş seyirli olduğu görülmüştür. Ancak radyolojik yöntemler huylu ve saldırgan tümörleri ayırt etmede yetersiz kalmaktadır. Renal kitle biyopsisi, cerrahi rezeksiyon sonrası benign patolojilerin yüksek oranda (%20-30) saptanmasını engelleyerek gereksiz risk ve maliyetleri azaltan stratejik bir yaklaşımdır. Günümüzde biyopsi; ablatif tedavi öncesi, aktif izlem sürecinde, ekstrarenal malignite varlığında, sistemik tedavi öncesi ve atipik kitlelerde histolojik alt tipi ve tümör derecesini belirlemek için endike kabul edilmektedir. Mutlak kontrendikasyonları arasında düzeltilemeyen koagülopati, yetersiz kooperasyon ve uygun pozisyon verilememesi yer alır. Tanısal doğruluk oranı kor iğne biyopsisinde (%92), ince iğne aspirasyonuna (%73) göre daha yüksektir. Komplikasyon oranları %1.4 ila %4.7 arasında değişmekte olup en sık kanama görülür. Koaksiyel teknik kullanımıyla biyopsi traktına tümör ekimi riski son derece düşüktür. Sonuç olarak perkütan renal kitle biyopsisi, kişiselleştirilmiş tıp çağında tedavi kararlarını şekillendiren, tanısal verimi yüksek ve güvenilir bir yöntemdir.
With the widespread use of imaging methods, the detection rate of small renal masses has increased, and most of these tumors have been found to be indolent. However, radiological modalities remain insufficient in distinguishing between benign and aggressive tumors. Renal mass biopsy is a strategic approach that reduces unnecessary risks and costs by preventing the high rate (20-30%) of benign pathology detection after surgical resection. Today, biopsy is considered indicated to determine the histological subtype and tumor grade before ablative therapy, during active surveillance, in the presence of extrarenal malignancy, before systemic therapy, and in atypical masses. Its absolute contraindications include uncorrectable coagulopathy, lack of cooperation, and inability to achieve the appropriate position. The diagnostic accuracy rate is higher in core needle biopsy (92%) compared to fine needle aspiration (73%). Complication rates range from 1.4% to 4.7%, with bleeding being the most common. With the use of the coaxial technique, the risk of tumor seeding along the biopsy tract is extremely low. In conclusion, percutaneous renal mass biopsy has emerged as a highly accurate and safe procedure that shapes therapeutic decisions in the era of personalized medicine.
Referanslar
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin. 2022;72(1):7-33. doi:10.3322/caac.21708
Patel HD, Gupta M, Joice GA, et al. Clinical Stage Migration and Survival for Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States. Eur Urol Oncol. 2019;2(4):343-348. doi:10.1016/j.euo.2018.08.023
Udager AM, Mehra R. Morphologic, Molecular, and Taxonomic Evolution of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Conceptual Perspective With Emphasis on Updates to the 2016 World Health Organization Classification. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016;140(10):1026-1037. doi:10.5858/arpa.2016-0218-RA
Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, et al. The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part B: Prostate and Bladder Tumours. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):106-119. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.02.028
Pierorazio PM, Patel HD, Johnson MH, et al. Distinguishing malignant and benign renal masses with composite models and nomograms: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinically localized renal masses suspicious for malignancy. Cancer. 2016;122(21):3267-3276. doi:10.1002/cncr.30268
Patel HD, Johnson MH, Pierorazio PM, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy and Risks of Biopsy in the Diagnosis of a Renal Mass Suspicious for Localized Renal Cell Carcinoma: Systematic Review of the Literature. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1340-1347. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.029
Srivastava A, Uzzo RN, Lee J, et al. Renal mass biopsy: A strategy to reduce associated costs and morbidity when managing localized renal masses. Urol Oncol. 2021;39(11):790.e9-790.e15. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.06.015
Haas NB, Nathanson KL. Hereditary kidney cancer syndromes. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2014;21(1):81-90. doi:10.1053/j.ackd.2013.10.001
Truong LD, Choi YJ, Shen SS, et al. Renal cystic neoplasms and renal neoplasms associated with cystic renal diseases: pathogenetic and molecular links. Adv Anat Pathol. 2003;10(3):135-159. doi:10.1097/00125480-200305000-00003
van der Post RS, Kiemeney LA, Ligtenberg MJ, et al. Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers. J Med Genet. 2010;47(7):464-470. doi:10.1136/jmg.2010.076992
Ellimoottil C, Greco KA, Hart S, et al. New modalities for evaluation and surveillance of complex renal cysts. J Urol. 2014;192(6):1604-1611. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.099
McGuire BB, Fitzpatrick JM. The diagnosis and management of complex renal cysts. Curr Opin Urol. 2010;20(5):349-354. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32833c7b04
Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):913-924. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.005
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277-2284. doi:10.1056/NEJMra072149
Diaz de Leon A, Davenport MS, Silverman SG, et al. Role of Virtual Biopsy in the Management of Renal Masses [published online ahead of print, 2019 Apr 17]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;1-10. doi:10.2214/AJR.19.21172
Schlomer B, Figenshau RS, Yan Y, et al. Pathological features of renal neoplasms classified by size and symptomatology. J Urol. 2006;176(4 Pt 1):1317-1320. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.005
Richard PO, Jewett MA, Bhatt JR, et al. Renal Tumor Biopsy for Small Renal Masses: A Single-center 13-year Experience. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1007-1013. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.004
Widdershoven CV, Aarts BM, Zondervan PJ, et al. Renal biopsies performed before versus during ablation of T1 renal tumors: implications for prevention of overtreatment and follow-up. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(1):373-379. doi:10.1007/s00261-020-02613-4
Wang Z, Wang J, Zhu Y, et al. Cause-Specific Mortality Among Survivors From T1N0M0 Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Registry-Based Cohort Study. Front Oncol. 2021;11:604724. Published 2021 Mar 10. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.604724
Zhang L, Yao L, Li X, et al. Natural history of renal cell carcinoma: An immunohistochemical analysis of growth rate in patients with delayed treatment. J Formos Med Assoc. 2016;115(6):463-469. doi:10.1016/j.jfma.2015.05.003
Danzig MR, Chang P, Wagner AA, et al. Active Surveillance for Small Renal Masses: A Review of the Aims and Preliminary Results of the DISSRM Registry. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17(1):4. doi:10.1007/s11934-015-0564-0
Motzer RJ, Penkov K, Haanen J, et al. Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(12):1103-1115. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1816047
Leveridge MJ, Finelli A, Kachura JR, et al. Outcomes of small renal mass needle core biopsy, nondiagnostic percutaneous biopsy, and the role of repeat biopsy. Eur Urol. 2011;60(3):578-584. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2011.06.021
Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, et al. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):660-673. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.072
Davidson JC, Rahim S, Hanks SE, et al. Society of Interventional Radiology Consensus Guidelines for the Periprocedural Management of Thrombotic and Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Image-Guided Interventions-Part I: Review of Anticoagulation Agents and Clinical Considerations: Endorsed by the Canadian Association for Interventional Radiology and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019;30(8):1155-1167. doi:10.1016/j.jvir.2019.04.016
Quencer KB. Renal Mass Biopsy. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2021;24(4):100774. doi:10.1016/j.tvir.2021.100774
Tsivian M, Rampersaud EN Jr, del Pilar Laguna Pes M, et al. Small renal mass biopsy--how, what and when: report from an international consensus panel. BJU Int. 2014;113(6):854-863. doi:10.1111/bju.12470
Brierly RD, Thomas PJ, Harrison NW, et al. Evaluation of fine-needle aspiration cytology for renal masses. BJU Int. 2000;85(1):14-18. doi:10.1046/j.1464-410x.2000.00417.x
Yang CS, Choi E, Idrees MT, et al. Percutaneous biopsy of the renal mass: FNA or core needle biopsy?. Cancer Cytopathol. 2017;125(6):407-415. doi:10.1002/cncy.21852
Campbell SC, Clark PE, Chang SS, et al. Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer: Evaluation, Management, and Follow-Up: AUA Guideline: Part I. J Urol. 2021;206(2):199-208. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001911
Schmidbauer J, Remzi M, Memarsadeghi M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy of renal masses. Eur Urol. 2008;53(5):1003-1011. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.041
Maturen KE, Nghiem HV, Caoili EM, et al. Renal mass core biopsy: accuracy and impact on clinical management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(2):563-570. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.0220
Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DY, et al. Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urol. 2007;177(3):849-854. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.073
Volpe A, Mattar K, Finelli A, et al. Contemporary results of percutaneous biopsy of 100 small renal masses: a single center experience. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2333-2337. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.08.014
Richard PO, Jewett MA, Bhatt JR, et al. Renal Tumor Biopsy for Small Renal Masses: A Single-center 13-year Experience. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1007-1013. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.004
Renshaw AA, Powell A, Caso J, et al. Needle track seeding in renal mass biopsies. Cancer Cytopathol. 2019;127(6):358-361. doi:10.1002/cncy.22147
